Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Emory vs Tufts

ZenjuChanZenjuChan Registered User Posts: 7 New Member
edited March 2018 in College Search & Selection
Guys, please help offer some opinions on these two schools.

My end goal is to get MBA.

After college, I want to work in New York, Boston, LA, or San Francisco

I haven't settled on my undergrad major yet. For Emory, I am considering BBA, economics, and/or Dual Degree with GAtech for Industrial Engineering (5 years). For Tufts, it's economics or some engineering.

Please help rate the schools in terms of their overall prestige (perceived by the MBA school admissions), the economics/business/engineering programs, job opportunities (starting salary), campus feel, campus food (love seafood), people's friendliness, party scene and student body attractiveness (for guys lol), city life and accessibility/transportation to it.


Also, I went to Boston and love it, never been to Atlanta. I'm Asian, and dating preference is asian or white or hispanic. Also I love Broadway shows, so which city is better at that?

Personally wise, I like being with fun outgoing people, but not jocks or popular cool kids. What is the best fit for that?
«1

Replies to: Emory vs Tufts

  • ljberkowljberkow Registered User Posts: 487 Member
    If your goal is to get an MBA, do something different for undergrad and that would be engineering at Tufts. Boston has better seafood than Atlanta (by far) and it's easier to get into the city from Tufts than it is from Emory. Why are you worried about prestige? Both are great schools that will get you where you want to be at the end of the day.

    I do know that Emory is being incorporated into the city of Atlanta and that there is talk or building a MARTA station next to the campus, but that would be years away. Tufts is 15 minute walk from a Red LIne stop on the T at Davis Square in Somerville.
  • Tufts2021Tufts2021 Registered User Posts: 80 Junior Member
    Tufts will also have a green line stop on campus by 2020. Both are great schools, but I would say Tufts probably edges out Emory in terms of prestige.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    edited March 2018
    @Tufts2021 : I don't think so....I believe they are very similar and Emory may have a stronger national and international reputation (mainly because of significant strength in healthcare and biomedical sciences) though neither is a giant brand in the US.


    @ljberkow : What do you think about that? I never knew that Tufts was more prestigious. It is more selective, but I think Emory has a bigger reputation overall. You are from Boston so may know more than me, though I typically find that regional views of prestige may be very deceptive, especially in the NE where so many students want to go elsewhere in the NE and essentially view any school except for a select few as "non-ideal" or less prestigious. Either way, I've never heard such a thing.



    As for this MBA thing.....uhh I don't see why it matters. Emory has traditionally had excellent elite MBA placement (P and Q did a ranking some years ago, and Emory was a top 10 feeder), HOWEVER, that is likely because of the abundance of people pursuing that from Emory. Also, it is hard to tell if the actually school is relevant because most folks work before pursuing it. If someone seriously wants to do engineering (or is strongly considering) and foresees an MBA in the future then absolutely choose the school with the engineering program, because I doubt prestige has much to do with MBA access. The top ones care about GMAT, GPA (lesser so than other prof. schools though), and experience. No need to choose a 5 year program when there is access to a regular engineering program at one option. Either way, engineering curricula are VERY rigorous and STEM courseload intensive, I suggest OP figure this out ASAP so that they know how many courses to take in each area of interest frosh year. You don't wanna fall behind on an engineering major.



    The BBA program has traditionally fed well into MBAs: https://poetsandquants.com/2014/06/27/the-top-undergrad-business-feeder-schools/3/


    And I think Emory just generally (so even those not having a BBA) feeds well into top law and business schools and I doubt prestige has much to do with it. The track records of success and preparation is just generally good. Emory has a big reputation for most of the professions.
  • Mamapa2Mamapa2 Registered User Posts: 63 Junior Member
    edited March 2018
    Yo I'm asian too! Two are very comparable schools, but Tufts is ranked slightly lower than it should be because it has not been a research university for too long (was a LAC 50 years ago) and does not have strong graduate programs. Still, it definitely has extremely strong undergraduate teaching and focus, some of the best in the country along with the NESCAC LACs in its athletic league. From personal experience, I was also really conflicted back then choosing between these two as I was a premed/Bio major, which has equal undergraduate programs at both (even though Emory does have a stronger bio grad program). However, I later chose Tufts over Emory due to the Boston location and financial aid.

    From an objective viewpoint, I would say Emory is stronger in business with its Goizueta business school while Tufts doesn't even have a business school or major. Still, Tufts does have a econ major and I know that even though econ and business are separate, my roommate, a econ major who got in Dartmouth and has done a ton of econ in high school, says Tufts econ extremely rigorous. Also, though I don't know how many students Tufts gets into top business schools, I know that Tufts does get quite a few students into Harvard Business school each year (Past JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Morgan was one himself who went to Harvard Business after Tufts). In addition, the top graduate school for the Tufts class of 2017 was Stanford, while the top graduate school for the class of 2016 was Harvard.

    On the other hand, Emory doesn't have a engineering school and Tufts should be stronger in engineering, as its engineering programs are quickly rising in name because administration is spending huge budgets on engineering facilities (take a walk around campus and you'll see). Some seniors I know here have said that when they were freshman, they didn't even think about doing engineering here because it was not that good then. Now, the engineering school is packed with students and Tufts has built numerous buildings dedicated to engineering and science, such as the enormous Science and Engineering Complex just last year.
    Good luck. You can't go wrong with either one, but hope to see you here in the fall!
  • ljberkowljberkow Registered User Posts: 487 Member
    @bernie12, New Englanders are pretty provincial, but local kids know Emory. I don't believe for a minute that Tufts has the national reputation that Emory does and has a more regional student body.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    @Mamapa2
    " as its engineering programs are quickly rising in name because administration is spending huge budgets on engineering facilities (take a walk around campus and you'll see)."


    Oh dear...this same old trickery (most schools with an engineering program are adding or renovating facilities assuming they are relatively rich). Usually facilities has NOTHING to do with undergraduate education in engineering. That is all about research. Students "may" experience more research opportunities assuming that current labs aren't merely moving to the new building and assuming that many more faculty are being recruited. Unless the facility is attached to curriculum changes or changes in pedagogy/new courses, they will just be nice new shiny places for undergraduates to hang out in and may give students a boost in spirit (and yes I recognize that some spaces may be for undergraduates to hang out or receive advising, but these could theoretically be hosted well....anywhere), but usually they do not lead to new courses or key courses being taught differently.

    *The OP should go to Tufts simply because it HAS an engineering program, not because a new building (or several) was added. I hate when undergrads buy into or try to sell such kool-aid. Unless it is like Georgia Tech's Klough Undergraduate Learning Commons, it is not truly designed with undergrads in mind. It may have a few new classrooms/lecture halls, but at the end of the day, the same thing will be taught in the same way. Even when Emory would try to show off new STEM buildings, I don't buy into the marketing. The only exception was chemistry which was FORCED to implement a new curriculum structure if they were to have the new building funded. I am just tired of the marketing of undergraduate irrelevant construction to undergraduates. Maybe dorms, gyms, and student centers as petty as they are, but let us not with science facilities. The only exception is if equipment in old facilities was not working properly or if there was straight up no room for stuff, if the curriculum was shoddy/not as developed as today...those things in which case the bar for improvement is low.



    For engineering, QUALITY and rigor really matters. That is how reputations of undergraduate programs are made. Unlike other areas, often quality of graduate programs or professional schools are not used as a proxy for the quality of the undergraduate program. This can be said for most STEM programs hosted by undergraduate institutions. The employer will not go: "You know, your school has great facilities, beautiful facilities" (Does Georgia Tech undergraduate BME ranking near MIT, JHU, and Duke have to do with the facilities? Georgia Tech is nice, but there are plenty of places with very nice facilities) as a highlight of an application. That is essentially taken for granted if the school is known for even moderate levels of wealth or prestige.
  • ZenjuChanZenjuChan Registered User Posts: 7 New Member
    edited March 2018
    @Mamapa2
    What are the things you do in Boston? What does your weekend look like? Are your friend groups diverse or divided by race/nationality? How's the party scene?
  • BiffBrownBiffBrown Registered User Posts: 452 Member
    @ZenjuChan

    Some job and grad school placement stats for Emory College grads:
    http://www.career.emory.edu/recruiters/placement and salary info/index.html

    Some job placement stats for Emory Goizueta School grads:
    https://goizueta.emory.edu/degree/undergraduate/career_management/placement_statistics/index.html

  • Mamapa2Mamapa2 Registered User Posts: 63 Junior Member
    @bernie12
    I'm not sure about other buildings that are being built, but Tufts is very undergraduate focused and professors here would rather help undergrads than do research here than most other universities because it was a LAC that focused on undergrad education to start with. The large Science and Engineering complex that was just built last year there is dedicated largely to undergraduate teaching. All my STEM classes and lab classes except for one have been taught there and in just two semesters, I have had classes on almost every floor of the building, which is at least 5 or 6 floors.On the contrary, research is mainly done in older buildings slightly off campus. As an undergraduate student, I already have a professor who has hooked up me with some BME research with a postdoc who is actually guiding me on the projects and who teaches valuable skills such as reading research papers and using lab equipment, which I would not be exposed to in an intro class such as Gen Chem. In addition, the professor who offered me the position isn't even paid to teach undergraduates and is supposed to dedicate his time mainly to research, but he still accepts almost every undergraduate who asks him for research as long as the student commits his/her time. Not saying Emory is a bad place at all and I may have been a little naive in saying that its engineering program (if there is one) is not as strong as Tufts just because Tufts has an Engineering school. But overall, Emory is a great school that I may happily have attended if costs were not an issue and I bet Emory, like Tufts, is also more undergraduate focused than many other research universities also due to its smaller size.

    @ZenjuChan
    Personally, I have friends who are White, Asian, Black, and Hispanic. Although I would say there is some ethnic group division, especially among international students who need time adjusting to school in the U.S., largely everyone just hangs around with people they like and you should have no trouble finding social life as long as you can hold conversation or participate in extracurricular activities. I mainly hang out with my friends over the weekend and go into Boston for concerts, food (plenty of fish and Chinatown is great if you're looking for Asian food!), and meeting people from other local universities. Party scene is said to be not that good, but I found it to be still pretty wild at one of the Greek houses by the tennis courts (not too different at all from a Penn State party that I went too).
  • PublisherPublisher Registered User Posts: 5,901 Senior Member
    @ZenjuChan : You really misunderstand MBA admissions if you think that going to Emory or Tufts will affect your chances at MBA schools.
  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    edited March 2018
    @Mamapa2 : Many places claim to be undergraduate focused (Georgia Tech is a giant research STEM institute. It's BME undergraduate program is WAY better than a lot of places who claim to be undergraduate focused primarily because that specific program was one of the first to seriously implement problem based learning), and perhaps they are. The point is, when you describe the caliber of an undergraduate engineering program and whether or not anyone should decide to be a part of it, or whether or not it is "rising", facilities should not be the first thing to come to mind. It is really only worthwhile discussing the quality and the nature of the engineering education and anythings that may be occurring to even further improve that. "Primarily focused on undergraduates"....well Emory can even get away with claiming that as its undergraduate population is higher than the graduate population, but that doesn't make a facility the marker of improvement in an undergraduate program. I am just asking people (especially undergraduates) to be very careful when they look at these shiny facilities and think "oooh, this is good for me"....hardly. It usually isn't for them at research universities, even those claiming to be undergraduate focused.



    You clearly missed the point (this professor you speak of: does he only do this because he teaches in a new building? I doubt it. He was probably doing that for a long time....like many more caring professors elsewhere). If I was still at Emory, I could likely say that: "All of my chemistry courses are in the chemistry building"......does not mean the building renovation was for undergraduates. A student there just won a Goldwater as a sophomore.....so clearly she was "hooked up with research as a freshman"....but she is also a very strong student and the BUILDING, new or not (plenty of chemistry majors did research as freshmen, won GWs, w/e....and other STEM courses are spread across campus outside of chemistry. I am just extremely confused about this concept....it doesn't matter), has nothing to do with her success. Arguably the different teaching that took place did:



    The girl was planning on neuroscience before and moved to chemistry citing the nature of her introductory course (would it really matter if it was held in an old building if the content and curricula were the same. No, but if it were different or if it was taught as a traditional lecture, that may matter. It doesn't matter if she, as a freshman, was sitting in a shiny new seat in a shiny new building):
    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/23/emory-revamps-chemistry-curriculum

    Even here, I do not attribute the building to the girl (the girl who just got the GW is mentioned in this article) or anyone's success. There was already innovative teaching happening before it.


    Also, you are preaching to a choir member. The person is interested in engineering which means that Tufts is a match because it has engineering. I am just saying leave this concept of facilities out of it unless you can cite where simply having that building led to or facilitated noticeable changes in the curriculum (or how instructors choose to teach their courses. Maybe they went from a lecture to a flipped model because the new building only has rooms fitted for the flipped model. That is a significant change) of the engineering program or allowed creation of different courses or activities (things that will contribute to quality in the longrun). I find it as naive and almost deceptive, and you are not the only on guilty of doing it. It is super common in university marketing in general. To say: "look at this shiny building, we're on the come up"...is really naive and tricky almost.


    *note that I can cite many with the same experiences as you had at Emory...or other "elite" private universities. Doesn't matter what building their courses were taught in.



  • bernie12bernie12 Registered User Posts: 5,293 Senior Member
    edited March 2018
    I'm sorry for being standoffish....I just think we as undergraduates or former undergraduates need to be careful when evaluating qualityand we also need not conflate "name" with quality or "newness" with it and generally careful when we try to sell our schools. I would be disappointed if seeing a new science facility with the same things going on as before swayed someone to come. It is the biggest trick in the book. I have seen this in other threads, especially with engineering. At one school (a top 20 university), someone was asking why the undergraduate engineering program ranked in the 30s and the responses were: "That is okay, we just opened an impressive new building, so that should help"....I just slapped my forehand and then realized it was coming from undergraduates who likely knew no better or were just only dead-set on yielding someone to their school no matter what. It isn't about the building itself, and how it looks, or even the classes held in it, so much as how those classes are taught in new vs. old, and other programs that may come about as a result of the building. When someone says, "program is moving up because of a new building" I can't help but be cynical and ask others to be cynical as well. It, like disciplinary concentrations in some STEM subjects are often just gimmicks.
  • Dawala282Dawala282 Registered User Posts: 35 Junior Member
    edited March 2018
    @bernie12
    This is from my other account but while I may have assumed that the "rising facilities" were an indicator of a better program, by no means did I say that they lead to a better program. Correlation does not equal causation.

    Sure, I understand your point. It is the teaching method, not the building, that matters. But as a biology major, I admit I do not completely understand quality of the engineering program here, other than hearing that it is on the rise, top notch, and lots of graduates have found jobs (as I do not have many engineering friends xD). Therefore, from my limited first year bio major experience, my explanation for Tufts engineering's "on the rise" quality is based upon the "rising facilities" I have seen, as I have not personally experienced a engineering class here. However, I would assume the teaching methods here at Tufts are not too much different from those at Emory, Georgia Tech, or a local state school, as at least the content taught is similar (I sat down in Intro to Psych at both UMass and Cornell during my college visits, much of the content covered at those schools were also covered in Tufts' Intro to Psych class that I took last semester).

    However, based on my bio major experience here, even though I have been sitting in large intro classes, professors here do actually give to undergraduates as much attention as "advertised." My professor who I indicated that I was doing research with was just an individual case. For example, my English professor has sat down with me for hours outside his office hour times to help just me on one essay. My Bio professor has held exam study sessions on weekends outside of his work schedule. My math professor has held individualized tutoring sessions at the academic resource center for students who really need help when instead, he could be doing research. I can think of more instances. Because my general experience in these liberal arts courses with Tufts professors has been well, I believe it is similar in engineering courses and thus recommend the OP Tufts Engineering. I believe you probably have had many similar instances during your experience at Emory, perhaps as much as or more than Tufts, but I am saying that individualized undergraduate education is a main focus at Tufts, more so than some other schools, which may or may not include Emory.
  • Mamapa2Mamapa2 Registered User Posts: 63 Junior Member
    Ok. I may have misspoke when I said "its engineering programs are quickly rising in name "because" administration is spending huge budgets on engineering facilities" but in no means do I think that. My original intent was only assuming that better buildings are correlated with better engineering programs.
  • ljberkowljberkow Registered User Posts: 487 Member
    The original poster seems just as interested in campus fit as the relative merits of each university and that may make sense for her. She is not sure what she wants to do and both universities are known as strong liberal arts universities. Emory may have a better national reputation, but neither school will tip the scales too much in either direction for someone seeking an MBA later on. As an Emory grad living in greater Boston, I don't see the motivation for her to attend Emory or even what piques her interest in Emory other than its national reputation and also the reputation of Goizueta Business School. Quite honestly, even in Atlanta, a candidate who is interested in both engineering and business might want to look at Georgia Tech before Emory. Georgia Tech is already downtown, has a much better engineering program than Tufts, and an outstanding business school.

«1
This discussion has been closed.